Dismissed

Upendra Sah v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020CRLP/3280/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR alleging false implication in an abduction case. However, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided he cooperates with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

_prima facie_ cognizable offences made out; FIR not quashed; but arrest of petitioner restrained until submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Upendra Sah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3280 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Upendra Sah Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 2101 of 2016 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C. Police Station Sahibabad District Ghaziabad with a further prayer not to arrest him in pursuance of the said first information report.

¶7

The facts of the case in brief are that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 5.12.2016 by the respondent no. 3 with the allegation that his daughter Nikita who was aged about 14 years was abducted by Mithun and Amir. It is further alleged that Praveen, Prashant, Satish Rai, Arun Rai, smt. Nitu Devi, Upendra Shah, Rajendra, and Nagendra were also involved in this incident.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no role in the crime and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that in the statement of the girl Nikita recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.3.2019 she has not mentioned the name of the petitioner.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist

¶12

in the investigation.

¶13

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 25.2.2020 o.k.

Upendra Sah v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Sah v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Mohan Tripathi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Diwakar Mishra and 42 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balwan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bholu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others